|Britain's crooked judicial mafia and lavish properties they have laid aside to
live opulent lifestyles
Freemason judges thieving massive land and property grab from unsuspecting men during divorce
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Labour CLAIM they will axe top judges' grace-and-favour homes which cost DOUBLE the price of a room in the Savoy
Senior judges could lose their grace-and-favour homes and be forced to use cheaper hotels instead, under a Labour plan to save £25million-a-year.
Judges who travel away from home to hear cases are put up in 15 publicly-owned properties - from penthouse flats to Georgian town houses across the England and Wales.
Some of the homes come with their own servants, wine cellars and sporting facilities, costing taxpayers more up to £363,642 a year for each property.
This works out at just under £1,000 a night - more than twice as much as a room in the exclusive Savoy hotel in central London
Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said judges should be 'sharing some of the pain' of austerity.
Labour believe the lodgings could be sold, with the money used to pay down the national debt.
The plan is the centrepiece of Labour's plan to axe wasteful Ministry of Justice spending. The party claim it has found £70million in savings which can be cut from the courts budget.
Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie said: ‘David Cameron's government is set to break its promise to balance the books and get the national debt falling.
‘The next Labour government will get the deficit and debt down, but we will do so in a fairer way and by examining every pound of spending.'
Mr Leslie added: ‘At this interim stage, Labour's zero-based review has identified over £70 million of annual savings in the courts budget, as we cut departmental spending in the next parliament in order to get the deficit down.'
‘And we will look at whether taxpayers would be better served by selling off the penthouse flats and Georgian townhouses, which are owned and maintained by the state for the exclusive use of High Court judges, and the proceeds used to help pay down the national debt.
‘The abysmal record of ministers allowing so many criminal penalties to go uncollected isn't just bad for justice - it's bad for our public finances too. A credible strategy to restore fine enforcement levels is long overdue.’
Mr Khan said: ‘This document shows that Labour is taking tough decisions when it comes to finding savings in the justice budget.
‘However, instead of the haphazard way the current government has managed the Ministry of Justice and its budget, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake and severely curtailing access to justice, Labour's approach will be fairer.
‘In these challenging financial times, we need to keep a firm grip on the purse strings, and that means taking a long hard look at the way we run our courts.
‘If we're to maintain the standards for which we're renowned the world over, it's only fair we look at using our court buildings more efficiently, judges sharing some of the pain, and addressing the failings in fine enforcement.’
| America's judicial mafia paves way for gay marriage expansion VIDEO
| UK judge rules against government but only to protect lawyers legal aid honeypot VIDEO
| Crooked freemason judges, lawyers and cops behind massive property theft in Britain VIDEO
|Democracy? No, Britain's now a judicial dictatorship - and it's time for revolution
Is the gutter press finally waking up to what we have been exposing for decades the rise of tyranny under
a judicial mafia? Human rights only freemasons, homosexuals and serial criminals need apply.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
The Human Rights Act is being used by the judicial mafia to make up the law
(Just like they do during divorce to fleece men and while actively ignoring their human rights)
Human rights decisions are a joke when either the judicial mafia in the UK or Strasbourg, and not a jury, decide the outcome
First, the good news. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled unexpectedly that British prisoners denied the vote are not entitled to compensation or legal costs.
That should go some way to deterring the steady flow of vexatious cases brought against the Government.
If opportunist lawyers believe there is every chance they won't get paid, they are less likely to tout for business in Britain's jails.
Claimants who realise they will not be receiving a fat cheque from the taxpayer, even if they win, may decide that resorting to law is not worth the bother.
The good news ends there, though. The bad news is that the European Court has again asserted its supremacy over national parliaments.
It ruled that MPs were wrong to vote overwhelmingly to prevent prisoners taking part in elections and insisted they must be given the right in future.
This case has been rumbling on for almost a decade, at goodness knows what cost in time and money. It was originally brought by ten men serving sentences in Scottish jails, among them notorious repeat sex offenders.
Had the court ruled that they were entitled to compensation, taxpayers could have been landed with a bill for millions of pounds as thousands more convicts crawled out of the woodwork to lodge similar claims.
The most disturbing aspect, however, is that such matters have to be decided by foreign judges and not by British MPs.
How absurd that the question of whether or not prisoners should get the vote rests on a decision by a supra-national court comprised of judges for whom no one has ever had the chance to vote.
We may kid ourselves that we live in a parliamentary democracy, but the reality is that we are ultimately governed by a judicial dictatorship, accountable to no one, with its power base in Strasbourg.
It's bad enough when government policy is re-written by unelected jurists from countries such as the former Soviet satellite states, with no distinguished history of respect for genuine human rights.
But increasingly, British judges are flexing their muscles, too. Lord Neuberger, president of Britain's Supreme Court — a typical Blairite, European-style institution — has admitted that the Human Rights Act has given the courts a blank cheque to make up laws as they go along.
Judges are using the excuse of 'human rights' to establish new rules on everything from privacy and sham marriages to assisted suicide. They are handing down the most perverse interpretations of statute, which often fly in the face of justice and decency.
Yet far from expressing reservations about this unaccountable judiciary and its implications for democracy, Neuberger declares that it's a good thing — because it keeps governments in check.
That stands the entire principle of British justice on its head. Our system was founded upon MPs making the laws, and judges interpreting and enforcing them.
All of this stems from the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law — which Tony Blair proclaimed as his greatest achievement in politics.
Blair's wife, Cherie, and her Left-wing activist lawyer friends even set up a new chambers, Matrix, to cash in on the bonanza of cases generated by the new legislation.
This was only to be expected. New Labour was a party of lawyers, for lawyers. If anyone is concerned about the predominance of public school boys at the top of British politics, they should look at the shallow, self-selecting gene pool from which our judges and top barristers are drawn.
Those of us who warned at the time that the Human Rights Act was a charter for criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants, as well as a goldmine for the legal profession, were howled down as enemies of justice.
The judiciary regularly displays undisguised contempt for public opinion, for the people who pay their wages.
Another judge, Peter King, said recently: 'There seems to be an expectation that the public interest trumps everything else. It seems to me that is not necessarily the case.'
He was justifying his decision to grant a Bangladeshi double murderer the right to move to England, where he has relatives, under the section of the Act that guarantees 'the right to a family life'.
As if we haven't got enough criminals of our own. We used to deport convicts. Now we are importing them — with the full blessing of the courts.
The Home Office will have to issue this Bangladeshi citizen with a visa, despite initially refusing permission on the grounds that his presence was 'not in the public interest'.
If this ruling stands, what's to stop criminals from all over the world deciding to make their home in this country? And what's the betting he goes straight on to benefits?
To add insult to injury, we are not allowed to know the circumstances of his crimes or even his identity. He has been given lifelong anonymity, so he could move in next door to any of us and we would be none the wiser.
The 'right to a family life' provision is the most flexible and abused section of the Human Rights Act. It has deprived us of the ability to kick out murderers, terrorists, even war criminals wanted for genocide.
The number of foreign criminals who avoided deportation rose 50 per cent last year. They include murderers, rapists, robbers and paedophiles.
The perverse definition of 'family life' has been extended to men with a couple of illegitimate children they never see and to another illegal immigrant whose ownership of a pet cat was cited as evidence of his right to remain here.
Britain has no need of laws made by unelected activist judges, based upon a foreign and wholly alien concept of justice and 'human rights'
A Bangladeshi student who was able to demonstrate he played for a village cricket team was ruled to have the right to a 'private' life in Britain and so he, too, could stay.
British judges appear to be more creative and indulgent than their Continental counterparts, who seem to have no compunction in deporting undesirable aliens.
Yet the right to 'family' life is not unqualified. The Act itself makes exceptions for public safety, crime prevention and national security; yet these are rarely invoked.
Even when they are, the courts still throw obstacles in the way of natural justice. Just look at the struggle to deport Abu Qatada. Our bored prisoners and their greedy lawyers have also been adept at exploiting their 'human rights'.
A Jamaican convict avoided deportation by claiming after she was jailed that she had become a lesbian and would therefore face persecution if she was sent home.
Others have won the 'right' to heroin and gay porn behind bars. It's amazing the number of jailbirds who claim to be pagans — and even transsexuals — so they are 'entitled' to special privileges.
One prisoner in Birmingham announced she had become a Red Indian and should be supplied with the appropriate cultural artefacts, including a drum and peace pipe — and, presumably, a tomahawk to protect herself in the shower block.
All this madness could explain why Home Secretary Theresa May has finally come round to demanding that we withdraw from the European Convention. Not before time.
It also might explain why the European court, while upholding prisoners' right to vote, seemed to soft-pedal on compensation and legal costs.
Perhaps they think that throwing Britain a couple of bones might persuade us to stay on board the ludicrous European legal gravy train.
Most Tories want to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. Why? We managed perfectly well for centuries. Britain had one of the most humane and effective legal systems on Earth, evolved from Magna Carta. Our common law served us well.
Britain has no need of laws made by unelected activist judges, based upon a foreign and wholly alien concept of justice and 'human rights'.
That's why we should scrap the Act and withdraw from the Convention.
Labour and the Lib Dems would never support that because it would mean Britain having to leave the EU. Acceptance of the Human Rights Convention is a rigid condition of EU membership.
But quitting the EU and the European Court would be the ideal outcome for Britain.
David Cameron's best attempts at securing meaningful 'reform' of either are doomed to failure.
The only way is out: a clean break and a fresh start as an independent sovereign nation with its own legal system.
Come the referendum in 2017, we could even be magnanimous and give the prisoners a vote.
|Pensioner jailed after trying to make citizens arrest on JUDGE while he sat in court
John Timbrell, 72, decided to take the law into his own hands after the judge stopped him speaking during a court hearing
FULL ARTICLE HERE
An angry pensioner who attempted to carry out a citizens arrest on a JUDGE while he sat in court was jailed for 21 days today.
John Timbrell, 72, decided to take the law into his own hands after the judge stopped him speaking during a court hearing.
Timbrell tried to carry out a citizens arrest on Judge Michael Harington after he kicked him out for repeatedly interrupting proceedings.
But the furious pensioner was dragged away from the bench by security guards as he tried to grab hold of the judge.
He was arrested by police at Gloucestershire County Court and a few hours later found himself back in court in front of Judge Harington.
Timbrell, from Drybrook, in the Forest of Dean, was sentenced to 21 days in prison for contempt of court.
From: john TIMBRELL
Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014, 11:18
Subject: [patriots] I'm Back
I'm back home after doing half of my sentence. I really appreciate your support and concerns . You should know that many letters/emails of support I may not have seen because the first communication that I received from the outside world was on the night before they released me. I did not even have the necessary phone card to phone out which I was supposed to be given on the second day. This is due to the civilian staff in prisons being so inefficient or not caring to do what they are lawfully required to do. The harm caused to me was nothing to the torment caused to other prisoners. The prison guards were helpful and courteous to all and were under stress themselves because of the numerous complaints they received caused by the back room staff.
I can now explain what I could not do earlier for fear of being stopped before I even got started.
I have seen Jack's email regarding the hopelessness of the treason allegations getting anywhere beyond Hogan Howe and I already had reached the same conclusion. Researching common law I think I have found a way to get this before the courts and already tried to start proceedings against a chief Inspector for refusing to record the crime.
This is a common law requirement since Henri de Bractons's pronouncement in the 1600s.
In common law precedent is everything. A judge cannot go against precedent unless he goes on oath and gives a reason. Should that reason be wrong he can be sued. You cannot sue a judge in any other court.
That is why they can get away with making illegal decisions. If one appeals against a judge's decision the next judge up is likely (SURE) to agree with the first judge's decision.
The Wilderness Centre sale was about to be completed and I found out that the Friends of the Wilderness Centre had given up trying because the council intended to sell it to the highest bidder. The council could have given the centre to the Charity two years ago which would comply with government policy to give communities the chance to run council operations which the council could no longer afford to run.
This has proved successful with our local libraries which are all run by volunteers. The council over the two years spent over £400,000 on security.
Therefore I tried to use the common law to stop the sale. The Charity knew of my dual aim regarding using the common law regarding treason so accepted my proposal and supported me. To answer the point that a member made that I could not use the common law to stop the sale, I was able to show that I personally would suffer harm by its sale. No one challenged me on that.
I would have preferred more time but previously 3 weeks had been wasted by the Gloucester Court who would not issue me with an injunction to stop the sale. They denied that there was a common law court in Gloucester. I had to get Master (highest form of judge) Leslie in the Queen’s Bench to instruct the Gloucester court to make the court available.
On the day of the court I had prepared my order which read that the council should not proceed with the sale until the matter went before a common law court where a jury would decide on the outcome. I don't know of any precedent to follow like this but I do know that if a jury decides that the council did WRONG ( a lawful term. The exact words matter) they could direct the sale to go to the charity.
At the court I had about 30 supporters, many with young exceedingly well behaved children.
The clerks there said that the judge had directed that, no children would be allowed in the court; that note taking would not be allowed, that the numbers would be limited to 14.
I already had served on the judge a notice stating that I was appearing as a man not a legal fiction and that I REQUIRED the court to be a common law court of record. I added to the notice words to the effect that it was MY court and that I COULD MAKE THE RULES IN MY COURT. I ORDERED him to DESIST CAUSING ME HARM . He just ignored me.
On entering the court I noticed the solicitors and council people all with pens in their hands so I suggested to my supporters that they could ignore the judges direction.
When the judge came in we were ordered to stand. I remained seated. You should understand here that ordering you to stand is part of the process to obtain joinder between the MAN and the PERSON who is the LEGAL FICTION. If one stands it implies that you are willing to accept their jurisdiction over you as is the case in all other courts.
The judge told me to stand. I said that I could not do that because it would imply that I was submitting to his jurisdiction and that I was a man and as such had equal status to the Queen AT this court. I said that I have rights and duties whereas he only had duties as he was being paid to be there. I said that he was a man the same as me and his duty was to make sure the rules of court were obeyed. He then started to present my case as if I was asking for an injunction. I shouted out that what he was saying was incorrect as I wanted to make the ORDER. In a common law court the injured party makes the order and the judge should sign it and the court should put its seal on it . It then becomes a LAWFUL ORDER.
The judge carried on and ignored me so I had to raise my voice. He threatened to eject me from the court and continue in my absence. He continued and I shouted that he was illegally conducting my case and I ORDERED him to stop. He continued where I then attempted to arrest him.
I knew this would be unsuccessful because of the high bench he was behind and because of the security guards. I wonder why they were in court? I had thought this through beforehand. It was not an impetuous act. I knew if I did this it would get publicity and I thought that the council would be embarrassed enough to delay the sale. The press had already contacted the council about the legal challenge but the council denied that there was one.
I was arrested for assaulting the security guard which was later dropped. This meant that all my witnesses who were willing to make statements in my support were also not required, i.e. hidden.
I was brought into court later before the same judge who gave me the opportunity to apologise but I said that had it not been for the two police officers present I would complete my arrest of him. I had a prepared statement outlining the law on his position and my position .
Then he went on to dismiss the other case I had against the Chief Inspector for not recording the crime. The whole process was illegal .
I am now considering my next move. If I can find a solicitor who understands common law I will use one but I suspect I will have to go it alone.
My thinking now is that I should go back to the QBD in London to show what a farce their representatives in Gloucester presented and hopefully establish the correct procedures. I knew it would be hard but never expected it to be this hard.
In the Gloucester cells I managed to speak with a solicitor and asked him to use HABEAS CORPUS to get me before a court to justify my detention. He promised to get back to me. After a further 24hrs I 'phoned him again and he changed completely and said he would defend me when I got out of prison.
You should know that I have no dependents so I am able to act this way without harming anyone in fact I felt a bit guilty in prison because I could not communicate with anyone to tell them not to worry
I certainly received an education in prison. My first impression was what a waste of manpower. My second was to compare it with hotels I have been in where people in their best clothes try to impress others in their best clothes about how important they are. In prison all the prisoners to a man did not try to impress the other prisoners. No one asked any other prisoner why they were there. The cell I was in was designed for a single person. There were two of us in there which is illegal because of the lack of space etc. The government's excuse is that they cannot afford it. I compared it with the debtors in prison who could not afford to repay the council tax. One law for the rich and one for the poor.
I think there might be more to follow. Makes life interesting.
Thanks again for your support,
PS. 10 days in prison will be worth it if, I can open up the common law courts.
|Judges helped protect homopaedo MP Cyril Smith VIDEO
|UK establishment lackey Butler Sloss forced out of abuse inquiry VIDEO
| Butler Sloss exposed along with freemason judges House of Lords 3 March 2010 VIDEO
|Butler Sloss has a family history of establishment cover ups of homopaedo abusers VIDEO
|No austerity for the British judges living the highlife
|Second top British judge faces probe over 'defence' of paedo's
These are some of the very bastards that have given themselves powers of removing children from their fathers
in draconian court orders and with NO juries.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
1,000 children a week stolen by paedo leaning judges in Britain(VIDEO)
European parliament petition hears about 1,000 children a week stolen by Britain's judicial mafia
The second senior judge exposed as a defender of paedophiles’ rights is also now under investigation.
Peter Thornton, the Chief Coroner for England and Wales, faces a probe by the judicial watchdog after his comments were uncovered .
He will not sit as a judge in criminal cases while the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office looks into what he said about child sex campaigners while head of a controversial civil liberties organisation.
As a barrister, Mr Thornton criticised the prosecution of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) after its leader was jailed.
And while chair of the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL), he then wrote to a paedophile saying: ‘Our policy . . . is a reduction in the age of consent to 14.
The NCCL supports the civil liberties of everybody including paedophiles and gays.’
The misconduct board is already looking into Lord Justice Fulford, an Appeal Court judge, after it was revealed he had set up a campaign group to stop the PIE trial.
|1,000 children a week stolen by paedo leaning judges in Britain VIDEO
|Court of Protection used by corrupt judges, lawyers, social workers to asset strip the elderly
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 09:24:13 +0100
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Handyman took £200,000 from woman, 89, after secret court of protection gave him control of her bank account
To: email@example.com; et al
Subject: Court of Protection
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am writing to you in your role as members of the Justice Select Committee to provide you with information for use in your forthcoming discussion on the Court of Protection.
Recently, I made a submission to the House of Lords Committee reviewing the Mental Health Act. As a result of the evidence given to this Committee, Lord Hardie commented,
"We were very concerned by what we heard about the safeguards. The evidence suggests that tens of thousands of people are being deprived of their liberty without the protection of the law, and without the protection that Parliament intended. Worse still, in some cases the safeguards are being wilfully used to oppress individuals and to force decisions upon them."
What that means in plain English is that the Court of Protection is being used by corrupt judges, lawyers, social workers and family members to asset strip the elderly and to then lock them up in homes against their will.
I am sure you have all read about the horrifying treatment these elderly prisoners are receiving, with the case of the Maddox family being one small example.
One then only has to add the "care pathway" to the equation to produce a picture of the potential of the genocide of "tens of thousands of people" to facilitate unlawfully seizing their assets.
How could that be possible in a democracy like Britain, you may well be asking?
In secret courts, with gagging orders and with the imprisonment of "whistle-blowers" for contempt of court, perhaps?
Does that not all sound chillingly familiar?
Is the Court of Protection being used as a vehicle for the mass genocide of the elderly and asset-stripping the vulnerable of billions of pounds?
Until one is a victim, one finds such a construction impossible to believe.
My elderly mother Barbara Hofschröer, now 85 years-old and wheelchair bound, became uncomfortably close to being one of the "tens of thousands". I was working abroad. The family members supposedly caring for her work for York Social Services. My instincts told me matters were not right and I rushed back to Britain in the nick of time. That was six years ago.
Since then, my mother and I have been on the run, moving from refuge to refuge in one country after another evading Interpol warrants.
The criminal gang intent on defraud her of her assets includes not only York Social Services, but also chief officers of North Yorkshire Police, senior government officials and politicians of all parties.
We have managed to delay the process of the authorities from unlawfully seizing our assets, but are fully aware of what will happen to us the instant we are found. My mother's name is on a place reserved for her on the "care pathway", while I have been declared "mentally incapacitated" without ever having been examined by a psychiatrist. The reason given is that as I have made up this story - which has been raised in Parliament on numerous occasions and has been covered both in the press and on TV - and, as such, I am "incurably paranoid".
Despite the fact that Lord Maginnis of Drumglass has raised our case in the House on several occasions, the government has not acted to safeguard my mother. The massive file of evidence meticulously accumulated over these years by a professional fraud investigator working on this case sits on the desk of the Prime Minister gathering dust. The Home Secretary denies she has the powers to deal with police corruption, when she does, while successive justice secretaries have evaded dealing with the case.
The evidence supporting these allegations can be see on the links at the end of this submission and in the attachments.
Thanks to our timely departure from our home in Britain, my mother and I have managed to escape the worst excesses of the Court of Protection. We still have our lives and liberty, though our liberty is very restricted. We are tentatively managing to hang on to title to our assets, though in view of my mother's advancing years, the chances of fulfilling her wish to spend her last years in peace and safety in her own home and to die there are diminishing by the day.
Before all this affair started, I did obtain powers of attorney for my mother through the Court of Protection. Her abusers have made and are continuing to make considerable efforts to have them taken away from me for whatever bogus reason they can think of. To date, they have not been successful, but we are resigned to it only being a matter of time before the Court of Protection accedes to their unlawful demands.
However, the fraud investigator has established that the Office of the Public Guardian is party to the organised frauds going on.
We know that York Social Services, North Yorkshire Police and the Office of the Public Guardian conspired to have my powers of attorney removed and given to the family members intent on defrauding her. Furthermore, the Office of the Public Guardian is refusing to comply with the Data Protection Act and give us sight of documents we believe to be incriminating.
We have sufficient evidence to warrant the arrest of the former chief executive Martin John for his role in the attempted defrauding of my mother of her assets.
The previous Justice Secretary refused to meet with Lord Maginnis to discuss the case, while the current Justice Secretary does not respond to correspondence asking for his intervention.
We appear to be in the realms of serious, organised crime here in which the state is targeting the generation that bought their council houses, seizing their assets, bumping them off and dividing up the spoils between judges, lawyers, politicians and officials.
I do hope this causes you as much concern as it does me. My suggestion to Lord Hardie was that,
"Would you not agree that an international commission needs to be set up, also as quickly as possible, to oversee the end of these massive, state-organised violations of Human Rights, that the assets fraudulently seized by the state and is employees should be returned forthwith to their rightful owners and that the perpetrators of these serious crimes should be arrested by an international organisation as soon as is feasible?"
I do hope as members of the Justice Select Committee, you would also give this proposal serious consideration.
Lord Maginnis in Parliament:
“The Hofschroer case has been on my desk for several years now. A widow in her 80s was dispossessed of her home in a way that implies collusion between certain family members and the Social Services. A son who has come to the rescue has been harried by the North Yorkshire police (that particularly dubious constabulary merits careful investigation) to the extent that he and his aged mother have been pursued through an Interpol warrant to their “refuge” in Austria. http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/proper-delegation-please-not-abdication/
“Does anyone in authority care that social services and police in North Yorkshire have conspired in the persecution of Mrs Hofschroer and her son? Are details of dismissals, forced retirements and other shady and costly measures pertaining to North Yorkshire Police available to legislators in Parliament? “
|Homosexual top judge 'should be suspended over links to paedo's'
Sinister connections between homosexual judges and homopaedo's and the power they have to remove
boys from their fathers via secret family courts and into the hands of perverts through state homes.
There is method in their madness and why domestic violence is elevated to a point were even a father raising his voice
is enough for these evil bastards to have the excuse to sign a court judgement that makes it easy for children to be
taken into care.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
One of the country’s most senior judges was facing calls to be suspended last night after his links with a notorious paedophile pressure group were revealed.
Lord Justice Fulford, who was appointed an Appeal Court judge only last year, was founder of a campaign group that tried to defend and promote the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).
The campaign carried out a demonstration outside a courtroom in favour of PIE members on trial, including its leader Tom O’Carroll, who was later jailed for possessing pictures of naked children. Fulford also took part in meetings at which O’Carroll was present.
During the campaign, Lord Justice Fulford, then a radical young barrister, said the paedophile organisation was no more than a means for ‘paedophiles to make friends and offer each other mutual support’.
The judge is the latest figure to be embarrassed over links to PIE.
Last month, Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman expressed regret over the help given to PIE by the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), the organisation for which she worked as legal officer. Her MP husband Jack Dromey and former Labour Cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt were also part of the NCCL while it allowed PIE to operate as an affiliate.
Yesterday, Lord Justice Fulford apologised for his connection to the paedophile group, but anti-child-abuse campaigners said he should be suspended while an inquiry into his past political activities was conducted.
Peter Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said: ‘There should now be a suspension.
‘This discovery is akin to finding out that someone who is now in a high-ranking and responsible position was an active supporter of the IRA at the time it was planting bombs and murdering people. We are talking about a very serious matter here. I think suspension is the right course.’
Labour MP Tom Watson said the disclosure ‘reinforces the argument that there should be a full investigation into the role of PIE’.
Labour deputy leader, Harriet Harman, expressed regret over the help given to PIE by the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), which her MP husband Jack Dromey was also part of
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office could start an inquiry. If any fault were found, the judge’s future would be decided by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.
Responding to the allegations against him in the Mail on Sunday, Lord Justice Fulford apologised, but said he had ‘no memory’ of founding the Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals campaign group, which operated in support of PIE, or details of its work.
‘I have always been deeply opposed to paedophilia and I never supported the views or objectives of the PIE. I attended a few meetings of the NCCL’s gay rights committee. I remember that for a short period Tom O’Carroll was sometimes present, which left me feeling extremely uncomfortable.
‘In the main, I provided some legal advice in the context of general civil liberties objections to the wide-ranging charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals.’
He said he profoundly disagreed with those who sought to lower the age of consent. PIE campaigned for it to be set at the age of four.
Sir Adrian Fulford, 61, became the first openly gay barrister to be promoted to the High Court bench in 2002. He was a housing adviser for Shelter and political activist in the 1970s before becoming a lawyer.
|More shambolic nonsense by the UK's judicial mafia
We witnessed another shambles in British courts this week when Caul Grant and fellow protesters were facing charges after being arrested outside the Royal Courts of Injustice during a Campaign for Truth and Justice Protest. The hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court turned into an utter farce as rogue judge Greenfield continually demanded the forcible removal of campaigners if they DARED to question his jurisdiction.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
CAUL GRANT: OUTRAGE AS ROYAL COURT JUDGE IGNORES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES 8 MAR 2011 (VIDEO)
CAUL GRANT DISCUSSES OUTCOME OF ROYAL COURTS HEARING 5 MAY 2011 (VIDEO)
CAUL GRANT ON INJUSTICE MAY 2011 (VIDEO)
Campaign for Truth & Justice
This case clearly should have been before a jury but as British tyranny continues under Maritime Admiralty rules, made up by a gang of judicial thugs, there was NEVER any hope of a decent conclusion to such a case while these evil bastards reside over what they claim is a justice system.
The ONLY witnesses given time without interruption were the police mafia wheeled in to give account of how the PEASANTS
dared to protest and question the judiciary at their top masonic den, the Royal Courts of Injustice.
The arrogant pompous idiot of a judge threw orders about like there was no tomorrow with clerks and officers of the court
bending over backwards to accommodate the swine's demands while his victims, seeking to question the legality of his position,
were left facing mass removal from the court if they dared to challenge his authority, which was always illegal throughout
the process by him failing to take heed of that jurisdiction challenge.
Left: Caul Grant
Even our own intervention was swiftly brushed aside and we were also removed for questioning his position and authority and a clear breach of human rights which British judges ignore at their peril. They will ultimately get their day for assuming they can continue to ride roughshod over the basic rights of every citizen they think they can crush with a tyranny that is reminiscent of the middle ages and an era they think they can hark back too to dish out the vile judgements that only favour the ruling elite and their murderous agenda.
Who exactly employs these evil bastards?????????????
The Queen has appointed Peter Charles Greenfield to be a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) on the advice of the Lord Chancellor
How curious District Judge Greenfield was PROMOTED in October 2012 after I made a formal complaint against him in Feb/March 2012 for his insensitivity towards disabled people saying he would not slow down his blurb blurb even though no-one, including myself could keep up with his verbal diarrhoea. He called the security when my sister asked him to slow down for the third time. He is a drama Queen, to predetermined decisions
04 September 2012
Ministry of Justice
Data Access & Complaint Unit
London email firstname.lastname@example.org
Ref: Ref FOI request Judical complaints against judges in the UK annually in the last 13 years
Further to my complaint against Judge Greenfield, ref 12450/2012, made in Feb/March, and not yet completed, I am concerned at the length of time taken to listen to tapes and respond to complaints to the Judicial Complaints section. I am also concerned about the ineffectiveness of the complaint system.
Please provide under the Freedom of Information Act, annually over the last 13 years:-
1. Number of complaints made against judges by a) Litigants in person b) those represented, c) legal representatives
2. The percentage of complaints which allege a) unfairness b) unreasonableness, c) perversion d) procedural flaw e) unjust f) racial discrimination, g)sex discrimination, h) rude i) abusive j) insensitive k) shouting l) bias m) prejudice n) costs o) maladministration p) perjury q) perversion to the course of justice
3. The percentage and number of complaints which are disposed off without an investigation report being compiled
4. The percentage of text in the a) first responses b) second response and c) subsequent response used by Judicial Complaints staff from pre-determined standard templates
5. The percentage & number of complaints made against all judges with i) names of judges and ii) staff dealing with those complaints where a) the judge was not made aware of the complaint or b) no investigation report was compiled or c) no sanctions were made, or d) no advice was sought from the nominated senior judge i) LJ Moses, ii) LJ Toulson iii) LJ Gloucester iv) LJ Elias or e) no referral was made to i) Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice and ii)Lord Chancellor Rt Hon. Sir Kenneth Clarke as a result of the complainant failing to respond to any of the responses by the Judicial complaints department.
6. The percentage and names of judges who have been subject to action against them a) sanctions b) striking off c) removal from position
I refer to my complaints against DJ Greenfield in the Dartford County Court ref 12450/2012, HHJ Mitchell in the Central London County Court 2012, HHJ Louise Kamill in the Snaresbrook Crown Court 2012, HHJ David Clarke in QB RCJ 2008, which were not properly investigated. Please send me the total number of complaints against these judges and how they were dealt with in each case and how the complaints progressed and concluded as detailed in 1-6 above. These judges are not fit to be in positions and ought to be removed forthwith.
This is copied to Eileen Mannion who is investgating a complaint made against DJ Greenfield in March 2012 and just completed listening to tapes.
Cc Judicial Complaints FAO Eileen Mannion email@example.com T 0203 334 0308
Cc Lords, MP’s Leaders of the people
|Judges caught pocketing £1.5million in legal aid handouts money still missing three years later
Stuart Turner and Denis McKay. Legal aid the crooked lawyers and judges honeypot and propped up by them stealing men's assets in divorce.
Legal Aid board behind the massive fraud and corruption that leads to men losing their homes and assets.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Two judges were yesterday found guilty of misappropriating more than £1.5million of public money.
Denis McKay and Stuart Turner systematically misused the legal aid money sent to their law firm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said.
It ordered the two men to be struck off the roll of solicitors and the Legal Aid Agency has reported their behaviour to the City of London police.
However the pair continue to hold office as judges and, three years after their misuse of money was first detected, disciplinary proceedings are still going on and no criminal charges have been brought. The money, said to total more than £1.5million, is still missing.
Turner, a junior partner in the Lancashire-based Lonsdales firm where the money went missing, said: ‘I would like to say sorry to the taxpayer.
‘I’ve been tried and found guilty, so I’ve got to pay the money back. But I didn’t know the full extent of the fraud. I regret ever going into partnership with Denis McKay – I’ve not spoken to him for four years.’
The misappropriation of legal aid money at Lonsdales is understood to date back to at least April 2000.
The firm, which was founded by McKay in 1980 with offices in Preston and Blackpool, held contracts to represent legally aided clients in civil claims, including major medical negligence cases.
When its clients succeeded in winning their cases, the firm claimed costs to cover its fees and expenses from losing opponents.
It should then have returned the legal aid money to the legal aid authorities. This did not happen.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority said: ‘The pair deliberately, systematically and extensively failed to account to the Legal Services Commission, now the Legal Aid Agency, for at least £1.5million of public funds.’
Lonsdales was shut down by the regulator in June 2011, six months after the start of inquiries into its behaviour in December 2010.
It said McKay had agreed that the firm owed a considerable sum and he hoped to repay it.
He is a deputy costs judge in London, where his role has been to adjudicate in disputes over the fees claimed by lawyers, including those involving legal aid.
Turner, 54, is a district judge at Bury County Court and also acts as a costs judge – assessing whether lawyers’ fee claims are correct – at Blackpool County Court.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said both men had ‘voluntarily refrained’ from sitting as judges since SRA investigations against them began. It has started an inquiry but both are unlikely ever to take charge of a courtroom again.
The SRA has not published its full ruling against the two men and may not do so if they take up the option to appeal against yesterday’s decision.
Both have large houses near the upmarket seaside resort of Lytham St Annes in Lancashire.
Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: ‘We have a serious problem in this country with quality control when it comes to judges.’
|EVIL judges taking over from GOD
For any judge to preach morality as if they are the moral guardians when the masonic judicial mafia
are behind the biggest terrorist threats against men on the planet. More men are being destroyed by evil judges
than ALL OTHER terrorism combined.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
More laws are needed as religion declines, top judge says
One of Britain's most senior judges said the rapid rise in the number of laws in recent years had been necessary as other modes of social control such as religion and old fashioned morality declined .
Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court Justice, said laws now reached into areas of life once left untouched by such regulation with 3000 new criminal or administrative offences added to the statute book during Tony Blair’s premiership between 1997 and 2007.
But he claimed the “expansion of the empire of law” had been necessary to fill the gap left by declining religious and moral codes which once guided people’s behaviour.
He said: “It is a response to a real problem.
“At its most fundamental level, the problem is that the technical and intellectual capacities of mankind have grown faster than its moral sensibilities or its co-operative instincts.
“At the same time other restraints on the autonomy and self-interest of men, such as religion and social convention, have lost much of their former force, at any rate in the west.
“The role of social and religious sentiment, which was once so critical in the life of our societies, has been largely taken over by law.”
In a lecture entitled ‘The Limits of Law’ given in Kuala Lumpur, the top judge discussed the correct role for judges and courts in society and looked at what tasks were better overseen by other agents of social control.
He accused the European Court of Human Rights of extending its influence far beyond its intended purpose as a safeguard against totalitarianism and reaching into areas of domestic government policy.
After praising the European Convention of Human Rights for its “wholly admirable” text, he said: “Nothing that I have to say this evening is intended to belittle any of these truly fundamental rights.
“But the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg stands for more than these.
“It has become the international flag-bearer for judge-made fundamental law extending well beyond the text which it is charged with applying. It has over many years declared itself entitled to treat the Convention as what it calls a “living instrument.”
He added: “This approach has transformed the Convention from the safeguard against despotism which was intended by its draftsmen, into a template for many aspects of the domestic legal order.”
Lord Sumption argued that in a healthy democracy people’s expectations of the law were greater as they demanded protection in every aspect of their lives.
This created a need for legislation in everything from violent crime to working hours but also meant a “more intrusive” legal system, he warned.
He claimed that acts which a century ago would have been dismissed as “casual misfortunes” or “governed only by principles of courtesy” are now “actionable torts”.
Lord Sumption said: “We need to think seriously about the proper role of judges in the ordering of society.
“We live in an age of unbounded confidence in the value and efficacy of law as an engine of social and moral improvement.
“The spread of Parliamentary democracy across most of the world, has invariably been followed by rising public expectations of the state, of which the courts are a part.
“The state has become the provider of basic standards of public amenity, the guarantor of minimum levels of security and, increasingly, the regulator of economic activity and the protector against misfortune of every kind.
“The public expects nothing less.
“Yet protection at this level calls for a general scheme of rights and a more intrusive role for law.
“In Europe, we regulate almost every aspect of employment practice and commercial life, at any rate so far as it impinges upon consumers.
“We design codes of safety regulation designed to eliminate risk in all of the infinite variety of human activities. New criminal offences appear like mushrooms after every rainstorm.”
| Ernie Wayne Tertelgate puts the judicial mafia in their place VIDEO
| Protesters outside the Royal Court Of Injustice in London VIDEO
| Patrick Cullinane Interview UK Protester Exposes Mass Corruption and Genocide VIDEO
|The power of the STATE is the excessive power of its hand picked judges
Royal parasite thanks her hand picked judicial lackeys for screwing millions of men in secret family court hearings
FALLING MASONRY Shining light on the Corruption and Deceit of the Freemasons
Washington freemasons 'House of the Temple'
California's masonic mafia's propaganda
Supreme Council of Freemasons - Under investigation for White Supremacist Racist activity (10 Duke Street St James backdoor
to Chatham House formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs)
Eton groomed royalist freemason henchman J. M. Marcus Humphrey was Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Scotland
Royal Order of Scotland the masonic henchmen for the royal parasite
Feudal barony still operating for a vile English crown under freemasons
You will hear them wittering on about the need for judges to be independent of the state . That THEY, who have given themselves untold powers by stealth while eroding the jury system, mask the unbridled powers of a judiciary hell bent on protecting the ruling establishment while manipulating THEIR laws to enslave the peasantry.
Obama and his wife are law society goffers , Tony Blair and his wife are law society goffers , Clinton and his wife are law society goffers and David Cameron, an Eton groomed toff, has even more power than former prime ministers thanks to his indoctrination into the satanic teachings going on just along the road from the old witches tower in Windsor, and where her henchmen indoctrinate future Prime Ministers into the art of duping the sheeple into believing they have a democracy.
The British royals are behind a global law society and THEIR legal system centred and controlled in London , enforced by the secret bidding of the freemasonic cabal of royalist henchmen ensuring ONLY her , her parasitic offspring and henchmen remain the richest despots on the planet. EVERYTHING else pales and is a massive smokescreen to hide the REAL terrorists made up of a bunch of judicial lackeys poncing around in their robes and regalia not realising that even dressing up a turd doesn't change its constituent parts.
They have been working overtime using their media lackeys to prop these evil bastards up where they regularly use comments made by a judge in cases where perverts are going down. This gives the judiciary some sort of moral high ground as they sentence them despite the fact they are the ultimate murderous destroyers of men not part of their five million strong gang of thugs and bullyboys controlling the global superstate by stealth.
But men are learning fast their esoteric tricks of the trade used to bleed the peasants , especially men for far to long . Their
scams are running out of steam as thousands of former victims who survived their murderous tyranny now have a global platform to warn others about the impending danger of putting their trust in a system of law that only feeds the global rich and their masonic minions.
|Judge (mason) who gave BBC paedo Stuart Hall(mason) just 15 months quits after visiting gay brothel
Homosexual judges destroying heterosexual men's lives in family courts
Judge Anthony Russell QC criticised for 'unduly lenient' sentence
He resigned in 1996 in wake of gay brothel scandal, it emerges
Alleged to have entered 'dark room' with doctor and hospital porter
Later reinstated and rose up the ranks to become a senior judge
The judge who sparked outrage after jailing serial sex offender Stuart Hall for just 15 months was forced to quit after being caught visiting a gay brothel, it has emerged.
Judge Anthony Russell QC's promising career as a barrister had looked to be over when he resigned after admitting he went to the male-only Greenhouse club in Walsall, the West Midlands, in 1996.
It was alleged Judge Russell went into a 'dark room' inside the club with a leading doctor and a hospital porter.
Following the allegations, reported in the News of the World, the judge resigned as part-time Recorder of Bolton and as the top lawyer for the Inland Revenue.
But five years later he was reinstated and has gone on to become a senior judge, the Daily Mirror reported.
Judge Russell prompted a wave of criticism after sentencing former It's A Knockout presenter Stuart Hall to just 15 months in jail after he admitting indecently assaulting 13 girls between 1967 and 1986. His youngest victim was nine.
The sentence was described as 'unduly lenient' by the Shadow Attorney General.
The Attorney General is currently considering whether to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for review.
Judge Russell admitted that he visited the club - now advertised as 'the UK's No1 gay sauna' - but insisted the description of what went on inside was 'factually inaccurate in some respects and exaggerated'.
But in 2000, he applied to be reinstated and was allowed to rise back through the ranks to become one of the North West's most senior judges.
In 2004, he was made a circuit judge by Lord Falconer then Lord Chancellor and a year later a senior court judge for Preston Combined Court.
It is understood the Lord Chancellors who appointed him to top positions were aware of the reports when he was being considered.
When sentencing Hall earlier this month, Judge Russell made reference to the 'darker side' of his private life which the presenter had kept hidden.
He said: 'In the course of your long career you have given pleasure to millions of people as a local television presenter in the North West, nationally in the It's a Knockout series, and as a highly regarded sports commentator.
'You were known for the genial personality, charm, bonhomie and wit which you displayed in these various roles.
'However those who have admired you for these qualities and the general public now know that there is a darker side to you, one hidden from public view until now.
'A side which you were able to conceal taking advantage of your status as a well-liked celebrity.'
A spokesman for the judiciary said: 'In April 1996 Judge Russell QC, who at that time sat as a part-time recorder, resigned his recordership following newspaper revelations regarding his private life.
'He strongly disputed, and continues to dispute, the details of what is alleged to have happened inside the premises, although he admitted he did visit them.
'The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, accepted his resignation. Judge Russell QC went on to be appointed as a Queen's Counsel in 1999. In late 2000 Judge Russell QC wrote to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, asking him to consider his reinstatement. In May 2001, Lord Irvine as Lord Chancellor, re-instated him as a Recorder on the Northern Circuit.
'Judge Russell QC applied to become a Circuit Judge in 2004. Following an open competition, conducted by the Commission for Judicial Appointments (the precursor to the independent Judicial Appointments Commission), Judge Russell was appointed as a full-time Circuit Judge by Lord Falconer as Lord Chancellor.
'In 2005, again following another open competition conducted by the Commission for Judicial Appointments, Lord Falconer, as Lord Chancellor, appointed Judge Russell to the post of Senior Circuit Judge at Preston Combined Court.
'Both Lord Chancellors were aware of the events of 1996 when appointing Judge Russell QC.'
After Hall was handed his sentence, two of the women who helped bring the predator to justice led the condemnation of his paltry term. The pair waived their legal right to anonymity in the Daily Mail last month.
Susan Harrison was 16 when Hall lured her to BBC premises on the false pretext of helping her record a song, before attacking her in his car.
Mrs Harrison, now 61, said: 'His victims deserved more. I hope that he has an uncomfortable time in prison and reflects on the gravity of what he did.
'Several of these cases reveal an abuse of power by you because your status gave you an influence and standing which you abused.'
'I feel that the sentence should have been higher especially taking into account the age of some of his victims.'
The mother of one added: 'His lenient sentence will not act as deterrent to others who go on to sexually abuse youngsters. I am pretty shocked by it and feel that he has almost walked free and it has made a mockery of what the victims have been through.
'This is after all his denials and calling us all liars and the claims spurious, callous and cruel – he has never personally apologised for what he has done and he is not remorseful.'
Kim Wright was 17 when Hall fondled her breasts at a show in Blackpool.
Now 55, she said : 'When he made those comments outside court about our allegations being false I felt like I had been abused all over again. He does not appear to be remorseful at all.'
FULL ARTICLE HERE
|BRITAIN'S JUDICIAL TYRANNY GOES ON UNABATED
Without doubt things are getting worse in the British Courts.
Judges have hit upon JUST THREE WORDS by which they can wipe out all the rights for which millions of men gave their lives in two world wars: The right to seek a non-violent remedy for a wrong.
If not remedied elsewhere, it has always been an inalienable right to seek that remedy in a court of law, either in a civil court, or by means of a private prosecution in a magistrates’' court.
Those who are wealthy can instruct a lawyer. Those who are not must act as a Litigant In Person. Unfortunately, the endemic hostility of lawyers towards the LIP does not disappear when the lawyer swears the Judicial Oath: It increases, as does the power to indulge it.
'TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT' are the words which are increasingly being used against the LIP by judges to prevent the case even getting off the ground, thus acting in breach of their judicial oaths & in violation of all Human Rights law.
The judiciary not only control the courts, but think they OWN them, regarding the LIP as a trespasser, to be repulsed at all costs.
They use the words as a weapon to defend their fortress, ESPECIALLY against a case which might bring discredit to what purport to be 'the Forces of Law & Order'.
The new words seems to have taken over from (& work better than) the words previously used by lawyers when facing a LIP, 'This is frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process of law'.
Now, as then, the stronger the case, the more the words would be used.
PS: So often did I hear those words in the past (either my own cases or when acting as McKenzie Friend), I used them in a little ditty for a Gilbert & Sullivan type song & dance.
Yes, I do like to bring a little humour in now & again, though, sadly, the situation is not at all funny. NS.